"Should those with a license to carry a concealed weapon be allowed to posses the gun if they have been drinking alcohol?"
Yes No Not sure
Typical LIBERAL Straw man Argument.
I answered YES due to the Principle. that wording is one of those “So you LIKE dirty air and water???”
Typical libbie BS:
“IF you’re drinking you shouldn’t defend yourself!!”
What about texting?
Reading?
Upset about world events?
Too pathetic.
They forgot to include “Female Individuals Having PMS Symptoms” on the list.
You don't get arrested for driving drunk if you have a glass of wine with dinner. Two DUI convictions indicate a pattern of behavior. If someone has demonstrated that they lack the responsibility to know when they've had too much to drink then why should be believe they'll be any more responsible with a hand gun? For the most part I don't think that the restrictions are that onerous. I might dispute the contempt of court for child support restriction, since there can be explanations for that and it doesn't indicate a lack of concern for safety, or the attempted suicide. But I can see the justification for the other ones.
I think there should be some restrictions on gun ownership, as we have today under some recognized standards, but that these restrictions must be based in “obvious logic”, and should also be appealable to a judge for discretionary waiver.
1) Felons. The discretion here is first whether or not they were violent felons. Second, whether they are repeat offenders or first offense felons.
Today, right now, felons can appear before a judge to request restoration of their gun rights, after they have served their time and are no longer on probation or parole. Many felons go to this effort, because they truly appreciate the need for self-defense, especially now that they more limited in how they can get employment and live their lives. Judges often restore this right, because they agree. But not if they were violent felons or repeat offenders who would be aided by having a gun.
2) Restraining orders. These are usually against ex-boyfriends and ex-husbands at the request of their ex-partners. Such orders are usually only made if the man has already made himself obnoxious.
Importantly, this does *not* mean that guns should automatically be surrendered when a restraining order is made, but that judges should have the discretion to do so, as part of the restraining order, by State law. In effect saying, “You are dangerous to her, so I am ordering you to keep away from her, and to both surrender any guns you have, and be enjoined against getting new guns for the duration of this order.”
Granted, restraining orders do not always work. For this reason, judges should also consider ordering the woman to be armed when in public.
3) *Graduated* misdemeanor offenses. Now this is a tricky one. In most States, first time DUI offenders are treated progressively harsher with each subsequent DUI offense, eventually leading to jail or even prison. At some point, the punishment is so great that offenders will *sometimes* try to evade capture, leading to a dangerous police chase.
This is made worse, and more frequent, because alcohol abuse is known to damage the judgment center of the brain. The drunk driver, who would normally never do something so stupid as try to outrun the police, does so, because their judgment is handicapped.
So the question becomes, “If their judgment is so awful as to try and outrun the police, if they are armed, is their judgment so awful that they might actually shoot their gun at the police?”
Again, this is not a question of common sense, but of brain damage.
4) Gun confiscation at the time of felony arrest. This would be a change in the law permitting an arrest warrant to include securing weapons during the arrest, for several reasons.
First, to “leave the guns where they lie” would create a hazardous situation or strong potential for theft. Second, that the nature of the arrest was such the continued presence of guns could create a hazardous situation on the release or release on bail of the person arrested.
For example, someone arrested then held for psychiatric evaluation could be quickly released, even though demonstrably suicidal or menacing. A judge could put a hold on their gun ownership until they had gone through more comprehensive evaluation.
In the final analysis, while our gun rights should be strong, there is a frequent temporary need for judges to be able to suspend gun ownership for obvious and pressing reasons.
The Founders created the proper 3 exceptions to gun ownership and they should apply to carrying, whether concealed or open, as well—no criminals, no mentally deficient and no traitors. Naturally this means that very few in DC would be permitted to own a gun.
I voted “Yes” just to keep the bunched-panty crowd in a dither...
Loopholes = the GOVERNMENT has to do what the PEOPLE say. Nice.
I live in AZ. We have concealed carry with no permit required coming into effect 7/29. I got mine, as did Mrs. Liberty. We are a cranky bunch down here...we don’t believe in that DST crap, either.
We have many weapons, but we just bought teeny weeny his ‘n’ her .380s this morning. Hers is hot pink. Hitting the range with a couple hundred rounds of ammo this weekend.
:^)